1. Comparison between 1) HL-LHC BASELINE: Q5 at point 6 at 1
Comparison between 1) HL-LHC BASELINE: Q5 at point 6 at 1.9 K 2) OPTION: Q5 at point 6 at 4.5 K
Contributions from
WP3: D. Duarte, V. Parma, H. Prin, E. Todesco.
WP6a: A. Ballarino, A. Jacquemod
WP6b: J.P. Burnet
WP7: D. Wollmann
WP9: S. Claudet, A. Perin, R. Van Weelderen
WP12: V. Baglin
WP13: T. Lefevre
WP15: P. Fessia, B. Vazquez de Prada
WP17.2: J.C. Guillaume
Presented by P. Fessia
HL-TCC 11/02/2016

2. Rational
In order to cope with optics limitations in Point 6 the approved HL baseline proposes to
What :
Change the Q5 with new cold masses having 2 MQY in series and cooled at 4.5 K
When:
Perform the activity in LS2 to spread the TE-MSC work-load
Extra benefit
Work in less activated environment
The following option has been put for consideration from WP3
What
Modify the presently installed Q5 to work at 1.9 K
It requires QRL modifications
Perform the activity in LS3
Reduce use of LHC spares magnets
. Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

3. Summary of analysis WP3/TE-MSC WP9/TE-CRG Other WPs/groups/equipment
Comparison in term of procurement
Comparison in term of work load distribution
WP9/TE-CRG
Comparison for operative costs
Other WPs/groups/equipment
Cost/work load and other final considerations
PERSONAL REMARK: cost differences coming out from possible decisions shall not be straight forward applied to present HL budget because I doubt that the full cost analysis was included in the budget fro all the WPs
. Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

4. WP3/TE-MSC
. Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

5. Implications for WP3/TE-MSC related procurements
HL-LHC baseline Q5 at 4.5 K
Option Q5 at 1.9 K
Item
Action
Cost/
Pro and cons
Magnets
Need to use 4 new MQY and 2 MCBY magnets from available spares
2X0.5 MCHF
+250 KCHF tool =
1.2 MCHF From present forecast for MQ spares
Not incurred costs
Cold Masses
2 recovered activated spares (2 MQY+2MCBY)
Special Storage needed
Design of new cold masses
Done
Design of new heat exchanger system including design the QQS cold mass piping modifications
80 kCHF*
Assembly of the two cold masses from scratch
2X350 kCHF
=750KCHF**
Modification of the two activated cold masses
135 kCHF**
+100 kCHF *
Cryostat
Design of new cryostats
Nearly done
Design of new QQS 1.9K fitting with Point 6 radial constraints (dump line)
15 kCHF
Procurement of 2 new cryostats
800 kCHF +1 FTE*year staff
Reuse of the same cryostat with modification of the QQS working on activated units
120 kCHF
* To be done for the Q5 in IR1&5
** Manpower and material included
. Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

6. Implications for WP3/TE-MSC related activities
HL-LHC baseline Q5 at 4.5 K
Option Q5 at 1.9 K
Item
when
Action
Cost/
Pro and cons
Work load
Before LS2
Single magnet cold testing (4 MQY+2 correctors)
Cold mass assembly
Cryostating
Full Unit cold testing
Single magnet MQY cold 1.9K to evaluate the MQY performance
(2 successfully tested already)
LS2
Work to be performed in LS2
De-interconnection BFBM
De interconnection present units
Re- interconnection new units
Re-interconnection DFBM
Before LS3
- Procurement piping and minor components
LS3
De-interconnection DFBM
De-cryostating
CM and QQS modification
Cold test ?
Require work in radioactive workshop
Interconnection new units =
. Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

7. WP9/TE-CRG
. Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

8. Implications for WP9/TE-CRG related procurements
HL-LHC baseline Q5 at 4.5 K
Option Q5 at 1.9 K
Item
Action
Cost/
Pro and cons
QRL
Procure/build 2 new service modules.
Only very tight option for LS2
2X250 kCHF
Modifications of 2 recovered spare service module at 4.5 K (if possible)
2X100 kCHF
Horizontal jumper connection
DFBM
Modifications of shield working at 1.9 K
Current leads rated at 6 kA ok for operation
Operation
Operation for 10 years
50 kCHF
100 kCHF
Extra jumper to cope with slope and guarantee the magnet wetting
To be verified not spotted before by WP3 colleagues. Not accounted in value cost evaluation =
. Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

9. Implications for WP9/ TE-CRG related activities
HL-LHC baseline Q5 at 4.5 K
Option Q5 at 1.9 K
Item
when
Action
Cost/
Pro and cons
Work load
Before LS2
LS2
Horizontal jumper connection
Before
LS3
Procure/build 2 new service modules
DFBM Modifications of shield working at 1.9 K
QRL modification
Eliminate the 4.5 K service module
Install new service module
Pressure-leak test of the QRL
New controls system to be installed
+20 kCHF
Costs in material costs
. Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

10. Other work-packaged and groups
. Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

11. Implications for other groups and activities
HL-LHC baseline Q5 at 4.5 K
Option Q5 at 1.9 K
Group
Action
Cost/
Pro and cons
WP6b
TE-EPC
PCs need to be upgraded to 6kA.
In LS3 this can be done with limited cost because recovering PCs from the IT in IP1 and IP5
50 KCHF
WP12
TE-VSC
2 Beam screen for Q7 length but different aperture
110 kCKF
Removal and reassembly of CWT
10 kCHF
Modification of the vacuum lay-out warm part
30 kCHF
Beam dump line (cryostat design made to be compatible with present routing)
20 kCHF
WP13
BE-BI
Two extra BPM
80 kCHF
Removal and reassembly of BPM cables
. Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

12. Implications for other groups and activities
HL-LHC baseline Q5 at 4.5 K
Option Q5 at 1.9 K
Group
Action
Cost/
Pro and cons
EN-EL
LS2:
new WCC (shortening -20 kCHF) on left side,
Re-orienting WCC on R
DFBMM warm cables
120kCHF
20 kCHF
2 kCHF
LS3: new control cabling for TE-CRG
De-connexion and reconnection cables
40 kCHF
EN-EL/
TE-MPE
DFMB frame displacement
Other
LS2 displace magnet jacks and DFBM supports and other local services
. Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

13. Cost summary and work load and other considerations
Baseline 4.5 K
Option 1.9 K
WP3/TE-MSC
1550 kCHF
1200 kCHF extra value of spare used
350 kCHF
200 kCHF tools for activated units to be shared
WP9/TE-CRG
including operation 10 years
50->550 KCHF
320 kCHF->620 kCHF
Others
422 kCHF
140 kCHF
TOTAL
2022 kCHF kCHF
810 kCHF – 1110 kCHF
Work load
Mainly TE-MSC, before LS2 and it can be distributed, larger amount of work
Mainly TE-CRG, to be performed for LS2 is tight,
Less work, BUT ALL ACTIVITIES PART OF THE INSTALLATION PLAN WITH DIRECT IMPACT ON MACHINE START UP
Still open for possible optics simplification, modification
ALARA
Lower radiation to personnel
Higher radiation to personnel, but similar to Q5 and Q4 work for Point 1 and Point 5, same tools
. Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

14. Considerations on the Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5
Contributions from
WP6a: A. Ballarino, A. Jacquemod, V. Parma
WP9: S. Claudet, A. Perin,
WP15: P. Fessia, B. Vazquez de Prada
Presented by P. Fessia

15. Recall of the issue and plan
Analysing two options
Baseline:
Cooling: the Q6 magnet is cooled from the new QXL line
(1.9 K or 4.5 K)
Powering: the Q6 magnet is powered from the SC link connected to the PCs in the new UA
Option
Cooling: the Q6 magnet is cooled from the present QRL line (4.5 K)
Powering: the Q6 magnet is powered from the DSL connected the to the PC in the RR
The option provide a cost and labour reduction possibility because
Reduces the length of the QXL
Reduces the length of the SC link and eliminate one circuit from it
. Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

16. Analysis path
Can the QRL-QXL connection/return module be installed/operated in the option
Can the DSL be modified
How the RR equipment shall be modified
Is the cost saving worthwhile
. Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

17. DQR to be temporarily removed to install the new valve module
Baseline
DQR to be temporarily removed to install the new valve module
First QRL module to be de-installed to leave place to the return module
. Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

18. Baseline Large vertical volume available in the RR area
Change in tunnel section entering the RR area
. Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

19. Option
The connection/return volume will feature more then 10 valves occupying
significant length behind the beam lines in standard tunnel section. It will be
necessary to incline the valves and install many ladders jumping over delicate equipment as collimators. It will increase the problems for possible machine lay-out tuning in moving collimators or other equipment
. Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

20. Option
All cable will need to be rerouted over important length on the wall
. Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5

21. We propose to stick to the baseline
Summary
After first visit the advantages in installing the QRL/QXL connection box in the baseline location look evident. This is related to the local tunnel enlargement allowing much better integration and operation
We propose to stick to the baseline
Clear separation cooling and powering arc to LSS
Clear separation of other minor services:
compress air
warm recovery line
Better location for CRG to perform maintenance activity not interfering with machine equipment
Complete reorganisation of the RR
. Fessia HL-TCC 11/02/2016 Q5 Point 6: 4.5 K vs. 1.9 K and Q6 at Point 1 and Point 5